John, All. 22 June you wrote and wrote and wrote and I answered, answered ...etc but I got the sinking Ron Kulp feeling that we are on different planets, you will never understand or be satisfied so I deleted it all just leaving this last bit:
John: > Ok. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're real flexible in your thinking. > I admit I skim sometimes because it does seem to me that you just > keep repeating the same incomprehensible formulations. Quantum Mech. is completely and utterly incomprehensible from "normal" premises. There once was a "weak interpretation" that insisted that it had to be comprehensible (Einstein was the representantive here) but I believe the strong interpretation is dominant now after the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky thought experiment (made possible in the eighties) was disproved. Yet, in spite of its incomprehensibility the Quantum predictions are infallible. I think we have a similar situation regarding the MOQ with a weak and strong interpretation. You - the weak interpreters - insist that it must be "comprehensible", while the strong (SOL) interpreters don't care if it understood from SOM - it CAN'T be - but simply apply it and the strong (SOL) MOQ's delivers infallible results while the weak MOQ is good for nothing. Bodvar. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
